Local NIMBY challenges Lots rd Scheme

[london lad]

News of a well to do lady from the posher part of west London challenging this scheme because it, the riverside should be prioritised for river uses.Hopefully she will win & someone can then propose a massive refuse terminal to take full advantage of the river. I'm sure her & her rich chums would much prefer something like that.

It amazes me the planning system in this country sometimes. This scheme has been through countless local council meetings & an expensive public inquiry- yet still someone can challenge a 1/2 billion pound development. Quite how this development stops people using the river as opposed to the redundant power station that is there now is anyones guess.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


River campaigner wins right to challenge £500m scheme in High Court


22.09.2006

By Mark Shepherd

Lady Dido Berkeley has won the first stage of her legal battle to stop Hutchison Whampoa’s £500m redevelopment of the Lots Road power station in London’s Chelsea.

The river campaigner, who in 2000 stopped Fulham Football Club from extending its riverside stadium, was given permission by the High Court on Friday to appeal against John Prescott’s decision to grant consent for the mixed-use scheme.

She argues that Prescott did not take into account the mayor of London’s Blue Ribbon Network policy, which says that the riverside should be prioritised for river uses.

The scene is now set for a judicial review type-showdown in the High Court, probably early in the New Year. If Berkeley is successful, the planning permission for Lots Road could be quashed.

‘We are just very relieved that justice has been done,’ said Berkeley, who is vice-chairman of the River Thames Society, a pressure group. ‘It is a shame, however, that we have had to go all the way to court to get protection for the river which the government should be looking after.’

Hutchison Whampoa had argued that Berkeley’s claim was time-barred. Under planning law, appeals have to be made within six weeks of the secretary of state’s decision. The Lots Road appeal was filed within this time limit, but in the name of the River Thames Society, which later withdrew from the case.

However, Mr Justice Underhill said that it was the ‘inherent jurisdiction of the court’ to allow Berkeley’s name to be substituted, adding: ‘It very far from being the case of a stranger who has failed to apply in time seeking to take opportunistic advantage of someone else’s claim.’

But in a blow to Berkeley, the judge refused to award a protective costs order. This would have limited the amount of costs that the developer and the government can recover from Berkeley should she lose the next round. Justice Underhill said the case was ‘not of a wide enough public interest’ to justify a costs cap.

Despite that setback, Berkeley said she would continue with the case. ‘We are going to carry on. If the government is not going to stand up for the river Thames, it is up to the public.’

A spokesman for Hutchison Whampoa refused to comment.

[Medo]

Bastard bored rich twats who have nothing better to do with their time

[gothicform]

i hope she loses and goes bankrupt. she embodies one of the major problems of the planning system... we have councils deciding then the mayor then a public inquiry and then the courts. isnt there enough oversight after the p.i?

[Dreamer]

Is her name Dildo! should be. How the fuck can this happen and at this stage. Sad olr` cow needs a shag

[El_Greco]

Originally Posted by Dreamer

Is her name Dildo! should be. How the fuck can this happen and at this stage. Sad olr` cow needs a shag

Hey!Dont talk like that about my grandma!

[Black Cat]

I'm unclear on what is meant by "prioritised for river uses" and why exactly this development proposal differs from any other riverside development? I assume the proposal incorporates public access along the river and facilitates recreational use along the riverbanks as is being undertaken along all river banks. The Blue Ribbon policy is not particularly onorous - and even if not specifically referred to in a report, the project appears likely to embody the elements necessary to comply with this policy. If so, why is the court permitting this challenge? Is there additional information we should be aware of? If not, then it is not Lady BM who is at fault (NIMBYs are entitled to their views) but the court system which should ensure a very good reason for halting a decision of the Minister of State.

[DarJoLe]

It's interesting that London's proposals are taking so long to get from drawing board to reality they are looking dated before they even begin construction.

[gothicform]

me too blackcat.i read the blue ribbon documents yesterday and couldnt work out what the hell she is complaining about as the policy refers to things like public access of the river. why didnt she challenge new providence wharf?

[Zenith]

because she bought her daughter Fefe an apartment there probably....

Despite that setback, Berkeley said she would continue with the case. ‘We are going to carry on. If the government is not going to stand up for the river Thames, it is up to the public.’

Im sorry to say this Miss Dildo, but you are not standing up for the public, and youre certainly not speaking for us. In fact your doing quite the opposite; youre letting us down...

So please go away and redevelop your brain..

[JGG]

I am not at all familiar with this NIMBY-case, but there is another one going on right now, holding up the redevelopment of the lands behind King's Cross which should start next year.

Now that Islington and Ken Livingstone have given planning approval, Camden has advised that it would also give approval, the NIMBYs start threathening Camden with a court case if they give planning permission. CABE, English Heritage, and basically everybody else who has something to say in these matters have backed the redevelopment plan. There was a public inquiry - I think this application process has been going on for three years or something like that. How sad. Here the NIMBY is Michael Edwards.

------
Court case threat for King's Cross blueprint
editorial@hamhigh.co.uk
15 September 2006
COMMUNITY groups have started their legal fight against Camden Council's decision to approve developer Argent's plans to revamp King's Cross.

In June the Ham&High exclusively revealed several groups had met to discuss the possibility of court action.

And now they have formally vowed to take the council to court unless it amends the plans, approved in March.

The council was served with a letter on Monday from Earth Rights Solicitors in Essex.

It states: "We make clear that should planning permission be granted without further consideration of the issues raised in this letter, our clients intend to challenge that decision in the courts."

Several complaints have been raised by campaigners including the King's Cross Railway Lands Group, the Cally Rail Group, members of the Green Party and the King's Cross Area Advisory Committee.

They have attacked the plans for having 40 per cent affordable housing, short of the 50 per cent guideline, and for the loss of the Northern Stanley building, built in 1865, and the Culross buildings, built in 1891 and 1892.

The fight over the development has been raging since the plans first emerged.

Groups called on Camden Council's planning committee to change parts of the plan and then asked the Mayor of London to turn down the scheme, but he refused.

Campaigners say they are now willing to seek a judicial review of the council's decision, however expensive the fight proves to be.

The groups have been raising funds from residents in the area and say they will not let cash stand in their way.

Michael Edwards said: "I think as soon as Camden Council made the decision we started thinking about what on earth we could do. It has taken this long to organise our point of view and get legal opinions.

"We have ended up with about 10 points which we have been advised by barristers are lawful points.

"We don't have massive economic or human resources - there are no staff and this is run on a volunteer basis at all times.

"But I think our case is extremely strong. We will have to have another round of money-raising but there are thousands of people affected by this and they are willing to put their resources behind it. If we have to fight it out in court we will. "

Other elements of Argent's scheme contended by the groups are environmental ones.

They say it does not meet air quality targets set by the European Union and the community groups say plans are too vague to allow a full and proper legal evaluation of its effects on the environment.

Mr Edwards continued: "We are desperately keen to have this redevelopment. It could be wonderful for this area and London but it has got to be better.

"For example we have always said that outline planning approval is not the way to deal with such a massive project like this, which will come into effect in 15 or more years."

Sian Berry, spokeswoman for the Camden Green Party, said: "This has confirmed our instincts about the scheme, about housing and particularly the environment.

"King's Cross is already breaching air quality controls set by an EU directive in January last year and it was very negligent of officers not to tell the councillors they were breaching EU law even further by letting the plans go through.

"We have time to change it. Argent can't start work until 2007. We are not trying to stop the development happening but we feel strongly it can be improved."

Earth Rights Solicitors has asked Camden Council to respond within two weeks and is hopeful of a positive response from the new administration.

On October 5 the council will meet to agree the final part of the Argent development and if that goes through, the community groups have three months to lodge their application for a judicial review.

A spokesman for Camden Council said: "We have worked extremely hard to make sure the planning process is carried out correctly.

"We have the highest standards in this process - technical accuracy, professional assessment and we carried out extensive consultation. We will respond to this as necessary."

katie.davies@hamhigh.co.uk

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by Black Cat

I'm unclear on what is meant by "prioritised for river uses" and why exactly this development proposal differs from any other riverside development? I assume the proposal incorporates public access along the river and facilitates recreational use along the riverbanks as is being undertaken along all river banks. The Blue Ribbon policy is not particularly onorous - and even if not specifically referred to in a report, the project appears likely to embody the elements necessary to comply with this policy. If so, why is the court permitting this challenge? Is there additional information we should be aware of? If not, then it is not Lady BM who is at fault (NIMBYs are entitled to their views) but the court system which should ensure a very good reason for halting a decision of the Minister of State.

I see your frustration, but I don't think the courts should ensure they have a good reason, they should ensure that they have a legal one.
She has the right to go to court in this case, and so she should.

What I rekon she's going to do is show a 'grassroots' opposition to a building site getting in the way of her dog's walk in the morning and all the other crap reasons that will be totally illogical, (as some were mentioned above - how does a scheme which can incorporate a set of ideals such as blue ribbon be fundementally opposed to it?). That's the kind of democracy we've got here. If people show they care about something, the rest take notice, as we are taking notice of her. Fine. We have the right to make as much noise as her for the other side though, and people will listen to this side of the story too (in fact I think they'd be relieved to hear something different). The companies aren't going to do it - they are companies, and are generally shit at making it seem as if there are non-financial reasons for what they're doing. That's probably because there aren't, but WE don't have financial reason for wanting to see this and other projects completed, so we should say why we want them, WE can oppose HER! If we don't then we obviously don't care that much. I hate NIMBYs like her, but you got to admire her bo**ocks.

[nick_-_taylor]

Unfortunately its a problem that will destroy this country: we give far too much say to far too important projects. The result always is that they go through and always it costs far much more meaning everyone gets less value for money.

Take T5 - why did it take so long when everyone knew that it would go ahead no matter what.

[Danger! 50,000 volts]

WHy doesn't she fuck off to the country side, 'hello bitch, you live in a fucking big city, not the bloody amazon, jeez this NIMBY pish is a major flaw with democracy.

[JGG]

Originally Posted by nick_-_taylor

Unfortunately its a problem that will destroy this country: we give far too much say to far too important projects. The result always is that they go through and always it costs far much more meaning everyone gets less value for money.

Take T5 - why did it take so long when everyone knew that it would go ahead no matter what.

Yes, abolutely right. And therefore there is also no vision, no strategy. I am looking forward for Heathrow T6 and R3, just watch how many NIMBYS will come out of the closets then. Again, everybody knows they will come, but the process has got to be painful to make people satisfied.

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by Danger! 50,000 volts

WHy doesn't she fuck off to the country side, 'hello bitch, you live in a fucking big city, not the bloody amazon, jeez this NIMBY pish is a major flaw with democracy.

I absolutely agree here - we should be protecting something that really is worth protecting - namely the countryside, before it becomes entirely the sainsburyside or motorwayside or (worst of all) the Barrett-bloody-homes Milton-Keynes-side. I think if there is a change to the planning laws it should be that they recognize that we need to protect nature, not protect silly human stuff in cities. We are planning to reorganize our cityscapes into more useful, efficient places for human endevour (and I don't mean cold clinical 60s brutalist). Thats what they're there for in the first place!

[mulattokid]

This woman is only concerned that there are going to be tall buildings within site of where she lives.

She pays no heed to the fact that many people will enjoy living there or that there will be some low income properties or that it ws a democratic process or that she is in the top 0.01 % of the richest human beings on the planet. She needs to think again about the fortunate things she already has in her life and less about trivia. Her time has passed.